Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"It's a big and fanciful <br /> <br />construct that they've <br /> <br />put together," <br />- Robert Wiygul, Earthjustice <br />Legal Defense Fund <br /> <br />are separately approved <br />for funding by Congress, <br />The Clinton adminis- <br />tration has remained <br />adamant about deaurhor- <br />iziog the remaining <br />components of the <br />original project bur some current project <br />proponents remain concerned. <br />Fred Kroeger, presidenr of the <br />Southwest Water Conservation Disnict, <br />a coalition of M&I and agricultural <br />interests in Colorado, said priority water <br />rights status is extremely important to <br />the state and that by de-authorizing the <br />remainder of the project, Colorado <br />would lose its water priority, thus <br />changing the availability of water for <br />agricultural interests, <br />"It's really a drop dead issue," said <br />Kroeger. "Unless that component of the <br />bill is retained in H.R. 3112, we will <br />probably back away from the project <br />and just let the Indians sue." <br />Concerns also have been raised from <br /> <br /> <br />'~;;~~~f,~~i~t <br />; ',.", ,nK"",A,k ','-'l;" ".,; <br />"~W:I;,~'~.:~ <br />..';;~t1~,.." "",',' "'..,.,..,,.,.;. ,. ,"., <br /> <br />',"wKe~llt'...,fr" illii;qlnMti1iiU,."., <br />, .'" "(.",:'c "';":'':~'' ,',', ~.' ',,:,',,"(;::\ ,t("Y~;:\':, ",' <br />.ijt~~i.I'tij{<iI(il>the':!;l~\?~~tJl'eS' <br />';,','as,'",' '.",',.,.,'~<:$e,.., "lvat,lO" ,'.ii,. ~,",,', ;,;~~,."',". ',' d,'. 100l,tlil, I,Y, <br />, U$ing0,e!'teeedent~~hY;$4~ieme <br />COllr'\~,decj$i~ulcllel~OillVinrerJ' <br />ti;[JnirerlSrate~Case.ti\e~;'i1tt <br />4d;ision,kno",nastb<iWinrers <br />Poctrin~.deteflnil;e.J,.,illittlndjo,n <br />warer ~jghxs exist gjv"!1,~(rhe vilue <br />oO~nd i~ ~pend~liton"c~essw <br />"'ater,{So.m~;l.fgue cllatanJllZ9 <br />massacre of Settle~att~eWhite <br />RhterSraddnin Colorado arid <br />'Subsi:quent teinpo,rary ,iermin3:tiori of <br />theInbe's lan4oW!Je",hiphY~fl~ct <br />of 9o!1gr.,,~ ~utJjfied\;Jte",ater <br />rights,This argllmerlr has never beel) <br />,r"cognizedbythecourts~lld was <br /> <br />opponents of the project <br />over potential uses for <br />the water, none of <br />which has been identi- <br />fied for certain. The <br />tribes have identified <br />several "non-binding use <br />scenarios" that include possibly using the <br />water for golf courses and other recre- <br />ational uses; for coal or gas-fired power <br />plants; or in-stream leasing to local <br />municipalities. However, opponents <br />remain skeptical. <br />"It's a big and fanciful construct that <br />they've pur together," said Robert <br />Wiygul, a managing attorney for <br />Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund <br />(formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense <br />Fund), "If you're not going to have any <br />use for that water and it remains stored <br />in the reservoir for 80 or 100 years into <br />the future, why would you build it?" <br />Earthjustice, along with groups <br />including Taxpayers for the Animas <br />River, Southern Ute Grassroots Organi- <br /> <br />, ' <br />, """,,' ',:.:':,"::- ,,:-:: " <br />~i~~t~c1J,yt~e,S~lkitQrGeneral of <br />tirepepi\ttin~t~fthe Intetior.) <br />" ""Tire19p4-1rizcnav,CalijPrnia <br />" 'd~cisio;it~fmed the Winters <br />, J:i<>ctrIll~ b}if~(atingthat tribes did <br />'h;i~~,;r~~,;,~~,~ters"'appurtenant to <br />, th~Ir, orig11lil1 ,~{Vation lands, <br />Arizunav'eo.1ijPrnia aI~oestablished <br />the Sral'ld~ltlfotdeterminiog the <br />afiwunt-. ofwa-.t~r reserved to tribes. <br />Qu.arlJl~",,!i()nof warer rights would <br />behased;o~,the concept af "practica- <br />bly,irrlgabl~acre;>ge." (PIA) the <br />ainount:of~ter needed to irrigate <br />l~ndsthaicou1d reasonably grow <br />crops,Ma~Ytribes have quantified <br />,heir <wiInets water rights through <br />settleme~t:~~otiarionswit'h the <br />federaLgoverm:nent. However" under <br />ALP, the CWo !=olorado Ute Tribes <br />h~d rheir Water rIghts quanrified <br />ulldet a-wa~er'r1ghts settlement that <br />included considerations .other than <br />JUSt PIAquaricification, 0 <br /> <br />6 . COLORADO RIVER PROJECT . RIVER REPORT . WINTER 200e <br /> <br />zation (Southern Ute Indians opposed ro <br />a structural alternative) and tpe Four <br />Corners Action Coalition remain <br />committed to finding non-structural <br />solutions to the area's water needs, <br />The Bureau, however, says the project <br />is entirely within its rights not to specify <br />what the water will be used for. <br />"Some believe that National Environ- <br />mental Policy Act and the Clean Water <br />Act demand ALP show what the water <br />will be used for," said Pat Schumacher, <br />manager of the Bureau's Southern <br />Division, Western Colorado Area Office. <br />"From the Bureau's point of view, Indian <br />water righrs settlements are intended to <br />grant water rights to tribes and are not <br />intended to tie tribes down to a particu- <br />lar LIse," <br />Many project opponents support the <br />Animas River Citizens Coalition <br />Conceptual Alternative, one of two non- <br />structural alternatives reviewed in the <br />2000 EIS, Under the proposal, money <br />would be given (0 the tribes to purchase <br />water rights in order to meet Indian <br />water quantifications under the '88 Act. <br />They say this plan, which the 2000 EIS <br />estimates could take up (0 30 years (and <br />maybe longer) (0 implement, is less <br />expensive ($273 million vs, $278 million <br />for the reservoir according to the 2000 <br />EIS, but only $115 million by citizens' <br />estimates) and less environmentally <br />destructive than building a new reservoir. <br />However proponents of the reservoir, <br />including the two tribes, say there are <br />toO many uncertainties involved with <br />rhe non-structural plan, "It doesn't <br />provide us with wet water and only <br />provides us with paper water which is <br />what we have now," said the Southern <br />Ute's Frost. <br />Water rights purchased under sllch a <br />plan would, under Colorado water law, <br />carry the same use as current water <br />rights and would carry the same priority <br />dates as the sellers today possess - far <br />more removed than the 1868 priority <br />granted to the Colorado Ute tribes <br />under the Winters Doctrine. <br />"Even if the tribes were to purchase <br />land and corresponding water rights, <br />